In Defense of the Electoral College
Why the current system of electing our president should not change
The Electoral College is a topic of controversy among many Americans. It is something that is considered by many to be a institution that is undemocratic and leads to the tyranny of the minority, However, it is also something that is considered by many to be a safeguard from the control of a handful of states, and a system that is crucial to protecting our democratic process. Who holds these opinions typically correlates with whether their preferred candidate won the previous presidential election. The Electoral College, for those who don’t know, is the system in which we elect our president. Each state is delegated a certain number of “electors” or votes (the sum of their representatives in the House and senators in the Senate), and the candidate that wins the popular vote in the state, in turn wins the votes the state has. The candidate that wins the majority (over 270) of votes will win the election. This process is a crucial part of our democracy. The Electoral College is a system that should remain in place, as it protects us from the tyranny of urban centers, It reduces uncertainty in the electoral process, and it forces geographic diversity in our elections.
The rural-urban divide is one of the most striking things we see in America. In general, big cities like New York City, San Francisco, Boston, Seattle, and New Orleans are overwhelmingly liberal areas, while more rural areas, like states in the midwest and central parts of the country. To fully understand this, one needs to simply look at the electoral college map from 20201:
Populous states with many urban centers, like California, New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia went to the Democrats, the party that favors urban voters. Meanwhile, rural states like the Dakotas, Idaho, Texas, Missouri, Kansas and Missouri went the Republicans, the party of the rural voter. As you can expect, the urban centers vastly outnumber the rest of the country, and dominate the states they are in population-wise. A prime example of this is in the state of Oregon. In 2020, Joe Biden won 9 of Oregon's 36 counties, but amassed 56.9% of the states popular vote2. This is because he won the five biggest counties in the state, three of which contain Portland or its suburbs. This all is a result of the urban power of Portland, Salem, and Eugene. These three cities (and associated suburbs) alone account for half the population of the state, leaving the other 27 counties in the state with little voice when it comes to national politics. This is a prime example of the rural-urban divide, and how it affects national politics. If we were to abolish the electoral college, the largest cities in the country would control how the executive is elected. The largest cities in the country, like New York City, Los Angeles, Boston, San Francisco, etc, would effectively run the country's executive. This was one of the Founding Fathers main reasons for the Electoral College in the first place. Alexander Hamilton wrote that the College was “to establish [the Executive] in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union”3. In order for the whole union to be confident in the President, the whole union needs to have a say in his election. That cannot happen without the Electoral College. The Electoral College guarantees that the voices of all are heard in the election, that it is not the singular population centers that decide who runs the country, but the rural areas too. It boosts the voices of states like Wyoming, Alaska, Iowa, and Kansas slightly to ensure their influence on the country. In order to prevent tyranny of the majority and for politicians to only do what the population wants, the Electoral College must stand, lest the government care only about the interests of New York City and not the farmers.
The Electoral College also reduces any uncertainty in who won the election. If it were left to a total national popular vote, when the races get close, then recount efforts would take days, weeks, or even months. It would make it nearly impossible for vote counts to be certified by the end of November in close elections, and it would only embolden conspiracy theorists when it comes to election based conspiracy theories. In close elections, lawyers will begin having field days trying to get as many votes for their candidate as possible. We can only look at what happened in Florida during 2000 to see what could happen in more states more often during elections. The “hanging chads” debacle could become something not restricted to the punchline of election jokes, but a reality we face every election cycle. This all goes without mentioning the benefit of having more of a mandate for presidents. A common statistic thrown around is that in 2012, “Obama received 61.7 percent of the electoral vote compared to only 51.3 percent of the popular votes cast for him and Romney”4. This gives more of a nationwide view of who wants the president then a popular vote would.
When it comes to geographic diversity, the more we have the better off we are. As I have mentioned before, the places that have the most people (and in turn will decide a popular vote) are centered around coastal ports. The issue here becomes this: the coastal port communities (Portland, San Francisco, New York City) have vastly different needs, interests, and ideals than farmers in the midwest, factory workers in the rust belt, and other communities. These needs also have a tendency to contradict each other. This will result in the prevention of any marginalization of small towns and rural areas, and the tyranny of port areas and large urban areas. This simple fact is stated nowhere better than in a resolution from the South Dakota legislature that reads the following:
“The current Electoral College system creates a needed balance between rural and urban interests and ensures that the winning candidate has support from multiple regions of the country,”.
Without geographical diversity in who elects the president, the president is not truly elected by the people, but instead by certain fragments of the country that may be out of touch with the rest of the country.
The Electoral College is a crucial system to defend our electoral process, because it protects us from the tyranny of urban areas, provides certainty to the electoral process, and it ensures geographic diversity in the election of our executive. While there are many who oppose the Electoral College because it is perceived as “undemocratic”, it truly is an important part of keeping our democracy intact. For these reasons, the Electoral College must never go away, and current campaigns to game the system and force states to go with the national popular vote winner must fail. The Electoral College is important for our democracy, and it will remain that way as long as we let it.
Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed, please leave a like and if you would like to read more, please consider subscribing. If you would like to read some more of my work, please check out Trumps impact on the Midterms, or my midterm recap. Thank you for reading once again, and have a great rest of your day.
“Historical Presidential Election Map Timeline.” 270toWin.com, 2020,
www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/timeline/.
Shepard, Steven. 12:52 A.m. “Live Election Results: 2020 Oregon Results.”
Www.politico.com, www.politico.com/2020-election/results/oregon/
Hamilton, Alexander. “The Avalon Project : Federalist No 68.” Yale.edu, 2019,
avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp.
Posner, Richard A. “In Defense of the Electoral College.” Slate Magazine, Slate, 12 Nov.
2012, slate.com/news-and-politics/2012/11/defending-the-electoral-college.html.